SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 5526 words

COMMITTEE: HOUSE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

SUBCOMMITTEE: HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

HEADLINE: STREAMLINING HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

BILL-NO:

 

H.R. 5455             Retrieve Bill Tracking Report


                      Retrieve Full Text of Bill

TESTIMONY-BY: BRIAN HOLMES, DIRECTOR

AFFILIATION: MARYLAND HIGHWAY CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION

BODY:
Statement by Brian Holmes Executive Director Maryland Highway Contractors Association

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee on House Transportation and Infrastructure

Mr. Chairman, I am Brian Holmes, Executive Director of the Maryland Highway Contractors Association, a state affiliate of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA). Prior to my current position, I was Executive Secretary of the Connecticut Road Builders Association, another state ARTBA affiliate. I am testifying today on ARTBA's behalf.

ARTBA celebrates its 100th anniversary this year. Based in Washington, D.C., ARTBA was organized in 1902 by a visionary Michigan public official, Horatio S. Earle, for the purpose of advocating federal legislation to create a "National Capital Connecting Highway System." That vision was realized with the enactment of the Interstate Highway construction program and Highway Trust Fund in 1956. ARTBA has more than 5,000 members and provides a consensus voice representing all sectors of the transportation construction industry -- public and private -- before Congress, the White House and the federal agencies. The industry ARTBA represents generates $200 billion annually to the nation's Gross Domestic Product and generates more than 2.5 million jobs for American workers. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Borski, members of the Committee, thank you very much for holding this important hearing and providing ARTBA an opportunity to present its views on H.R. 5455: Expediting Project Delivery to Improve Transportation and the Environment -- or ExPDITE -- Act. At the outset I also want to thank Chairman Young for making this issue a priority for the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and would like to say that ARTBA shares your interest in assuring that all Americans live in a healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment. We are not here today to suggest a radical overhaul of America's environmental laws and regulations. We would, however, like to suggest some badly-needed "fine-tuning" to federal processes that will not only improve public health, but also improve the efficiency of making environmentally-sound and needed highway and mass transit investments. We believe the ExPDITE Act does just that.

I would like to point out that also testifying today is Hal Kassoff, vice president of Parsons Brinckerhoff, on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies. Hal is co-chair of the Planning and Environmental Working Group for ARTBA's TEA-21 Reauthorization Task Force. We fully support Hal's testimony along with the recommendations he is going to make to this subcommittee today.

General Background on NEPA

Mr. Chairman, transportation infrastructure projects must navigate through an often time-consuming and complex planning process. In 1969, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which is a process-guiding Act of general applicability designed to ensure compliance with the many specific federal environmental laws, permitting and consultation activities that involve a number of federal agencies. NEPA establishes general policy, sets goals and provides a means for carrying out these policies. NEPA is triggered any time action by the federal government will result in an "environmental impact." The White House Council on Environmental Quality defines environmental impacts as any impact on the environment and on historic or cultural resources. Agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) (for wetland and water permits), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (for Endangered Species Act compliance), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) (for historic preservation laws), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and many other agencies are commonly involved in this process. NEPA does not mandate specific outcomes; it simply governs how the process must take place. NEPA is triggered in the transportation construction planning process when federal funds are being used to finance the project.

NEPA establishes three classes of environmental reviews that must take place, based on the magnitude of the anticipated impact of the proposed transportation project:

1) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Projects where a significant environmental impact is anticipated must complete a full EIS. Many federal agencies, such as the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), have developed their own policies to implement NEPA and to address the necessity of an EIS. For example, FHWA regulations mandate that an EIS be prepared where a new controlled access highway or road project with four or more lanes is going to be constructed on a new location.

2) Environmental Assessment (EA). In instances where neither NEPA nor FHWA's own regulations dictate that an EIS must be completed, a less strenuous EA must be completed. An EA will result in one of two results: there will be a "finding of no significant impact" (FONSI) to the environment; or the agencies will determine that there will be a significant impact, thereby prompting them to conduct a full EIS. Widening or expanding the capacity of an existing highway is a typical highway project that would require an EA.

3) Categorical Exclusion (CE). Projects that neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant environmental impact can be treated as a CE. State agencies must provide FHWA with sufficient information on a case-by-case basis to demonstrate that environmental impacts associated with a project will not rise above the CE threshold. Road rehabilitation or bridge replacement projects are typical highway projects that would only require a CE.

An EIS is the most intensive and time-consuming of the processes described above. If an EIS is performed, the agency performing the review, i.e., the state department of transportation (DOT), must prepare a document that identifies each environmental impact of a proposed project, as well as alternatives that may have different impacts and the pros and cons of each. This document must be released in draft form to allow the public and other government agencies to submit comments. These comments must then be addressed when the EIS is published in its final form. In rejecting different alternatives, NEPA requires the agency to carefully document why other alternatives were not selected.

Delays in the Process

Mr. Chairman, you don't have to be an expert to know that our transportation planning process has reached a state of gridlock. Today, it is almost as if one needs a global positioning system to keep track of where a transportation improvement project is in the review process. According to a recent report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO)[1], as many as 200 major steps are involved in developing a transportation project from the identification of the project need to the start of construction. According to the same report, it typically takes between nine and 19 years to plan, gain approval of, and construct a new major federally funded highway project. This process involves dozens of overlapping state and federal laws, including NEPA, state NEPA equivalents, wetland permits, endangered species implementation, clean air conformity, etc. Often times these procedures mask disparate agendas or, at a minimum, demonstrate an institutional lack of interagency coordination that results in a seemingly endless string of delays. While the ExPDITE Act maintains these processes, it attempts to minimize delays and inject a holistic, unified approach to the approval of transportation projects.

During the next panel, several of those from the environmental community will likely argue that environmental process delays are limited to only a few controversial projects and that for the most part, factors other than environmental laws play a larger role in delaying other projects. However, such statements are contrary to fact and common knowledge.

It is true -- according to FHWA -- that only about three percent of federally funded highway projects require the completion of an in-depth EIS. As you know quite well, Mr. Chairman, since 1990, Interstate lane miles have only increased by about six percent. The truth is there are very few projects in terms of numbers that involve new construction, thereby requiring an EIS. However, most of these projects are very large in scope and account for a large portion of each state's construction budget in any given year. Many of these projects, while small in number, are very large in terms of cost, often in the range of tens of millions of dollars and even in excess of a billion dollars each. These projects also have a very large impact on public safety and mobility for the traveling public and are, therefore, the highest priority projects for most states.

A recent study by FHWA confirmed that the time required to process environmental documents for large projects has doubled over the past two decades. In the 1970s, the average time for completion of an EIS was 2.2 years. U.S. DOT Assistant Secretary for Policy Emil Frankel recently reported that from 1999-2001 the median time for completing an EIS was 4.4 years. If federal Clean Water Act section 404 wetland permit issues or section 4(f) historic preservation or parkland avoidance issues come into play, the average time period grows by an additional two years, on average.

However, delays in the transportation project environmental review and approval process are not only limited to large projects. While according to FHWA three percent of federally funded transportation improvement projects require an EIS, the remaining 97 percent require an EA, (6.5 percent) or CE (90.6 percent). A recent report[2 ] conducted by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) stated:

"[D]elays in completing [EA and CE] reviews are encountered frequently despite the mininimal environmental impacts associated with such projects. Even if such project-level delays are individually small, their cumulative impact may be significant because most transportation projects are processed as CEs or EAs."

According to the report, 63 percent of all state DOTs responding to the survey reported environmental process delays with preparation of CEs and 81 percent reported similar delays involving EAs. These delays triple average environmental review times for CEs -- from about eight months to just under two years -- and have more than doubled review times for EAs, from under 1.5 years to about 3.5 years. The most common reason for these delays: section 4(f) requirements (66 percent); section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (61 percent); and section 404 of the Clean Water Act (53 percent). These numbers are consistent with a survey ARTBA conducted in 2001 of 49 state DOTs on delays in the environmental review process.

Because of these lengthy delays, many state DOTs have simply assumed extended time periods in their planning schedules, giving the misimpression that the environmental review process is not taking an inordinately lengthy period of time. While many environmental groups state that delays are primarily due to funding issues, the complexity of the project or low priority of the project, just the opposite is true. State DOTs often withhold funding on projects until the environmental review process is complete, making it appear that funding is the reason for the delay.

The basic problem is that the development of a transportation project involves multiple agencies evaluating the impacts of the project as required by NEPA. While it would seem that the NEPA process would establish a uniform set of regulations and submittal documents nationwide, this has not been the case. For example, EPA, Corps, FWS and their companion state agencies each require a separate review and approval process, forcing separate reviews of separate regulations, and separate determinations of key benchmark issues, such as the purpose and needs of a project, and requiring planners to answer separate requests for additional information. Also, each of these agencies issues approvals according to independent schedules.

Even some environmentalists have admitted there are many needless delays in the environmental review process for transportation projects. In April 29, 1999, testimony before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Roy Kienitz, then executive director of the Surface Transportation Policy Project said:

"There is no good reason for federal approval to take years if there are no major disagreements over the project being proposed. These delays are the most needless of all and are the easiest ones to attack."

Delay Kills

Sadly though, delays in the environmental review and approval process for transportation improvement projects can have tragic consequences. According to the U.S. DOT, almost 42,000 people are killed each year on the nation's highways. One person in the U.S. dies from a traffic crash every 13 minutes and there is one crash- -related injury every 10 seconds. Traffic crashes are the leading cause of death in the U.S. for people ages 6 to 33, and their economic cost is estimated to be $230.6 billion each year in added medical, insurance, and other expenses. That's about 2.3 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. To put this figure in perspective, the total annual public and private health care expenditures caused by tobacco use have been estimated at $93 billion annually.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, roadway safety is a huge public health crisis! The sad part is that, according to U.S. DOT, approximately 15,000 of these deaths annually -- are in crashes in which substandard roadway conditions, obsolete designs or roadside hazards are a factor. These are accidents that we can prevent through improved transportation infrastructure. According to FHWA, for every $100 million we spend on highway safety improvements, we can save over 145 lives over a 10-year period.

Mr. Chairman, these numbers are not mere empty statistics. These are real lives. Just ask Congressman Rob Simmons of Connecticut who serves on this committee. In his district, he has one of the deadliest roads in America -- Route 85. The reason this road is so dangerous is that Route 11, a limited access freeway that was supposed to carry traffic from Hartford to Interstate 95 in New London, has never been completed. As a result, traffic along this gap must divert onto a rural two-lane road for the 8.7-mile stretch of Route 11 that has never been completed. That two-lane road is Route 85. The limited access Route 11 has been on the planning books since the late-1950s, but has been delayed time- and-time again, primarily due to environmental issues. The sad part is that this stretch of Route 85 experiences over 200 crashes per year, many of them deadly. If nothing is done, that number is expected to increase to nearly 300 crashes per year by 2020. By building Route 11 though, expected traffic on Route 85 would decrease over 60 percent and accidents are would be estimated to drop to about 100 per year. Route 11 also has the support of 70 percent of the residents in the area and includes a greenway along its corridor in which all commercial development would be banned. This represents a good faith effort to be environmentally insensitive, which has fallen on deaf ears. Mr. Chairman, there has to be a better way.

Besides safety, delays cost us time and money. According to the Texas Transportation Institute[3] congestion in the nation's 75 largest urban areas (which includes cities as small as 100,000 people) has steadily worsened over the past 18 years. The average annual delay for rush hour travelers in these cities climbed from 16 hours in 1982 to 62 hours in 2000. The total cost of congestion in these areas amounted to $67.5 billion in 2000, which was the value of 3.6 billion hours of delay and 5.7 billion gallons of excess fuel consumed.

And congestion is no longer just an urban problem. A recent GAO report[4] stated that while Interstate lane miles have only grown by six percent since 1990, the U.S. population has grown by 13 percent, the number of licensed drivers is up 14 percent, vehicle miles traveled has increased 39 percent and freight by intercity trucks is up 40 percent. In the same report, state DOTs claim urban congestion will be their biggest challenge over the next decade (42 state DOTs) followed by rural congestion (25 state DOTs).

ARTBA's Policy Position

As you can see, Mr. Chairman, the current system for delivering transportation improvement projects is in need of fine-tuning. For nearly a decade, reform to the environmental review process has been a top ARTBA priority, second only to investment issues. Indeed, ARTBA supports streamlining the approval and review process for all modes of transportation improvement projects.

The goal of these efforts is not--as some have suggested--to undermine the environmental review process. Rather, it is to coordinate the process in order to more effectively deal with the transportation needs and congestion issues facing the nation. If handled appropriately, streamlining these processes would increase the efficiency of the transportation network, and ensure the traveling public receives the full benefit of the user fee- financed transportation system. We are not seeking changes that are outcome determinative; we are seeking process improvements that would generate the same answer in a more timely manner.

During the development of Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21), ARTBA and the Transportation Construction Coalition urged Congress to include provisions that would:

1) Establish a coordinated environmental review process with the U.S. DOT as the lead agency and where all reviews, analysis and permits are performed concurrently and cooperatively within a mutually agreed upon schedule by both federal and state agencies with jurisdiction over the project; and

2) Allow the delegation of the U.S. DOT role in NEPA and other related approvals for all projects to state DOTs that are willing, qualified, and capable to accept such responsibility.

The Transportation Construction Coalition maintained that under such a streamlined process that as much as one-third of the time currently required to plan and design a highway project could be eliminated while, at the same time, protecting the environment, improving public participation, and designing and constructing high-quality transportation improvement projects for the American people. In addition, timely completion of needed transportation improvement projects could generate enormous benefits in terms of safety, economic development, delay reductions, and user productivity.

Section 1309 of TEA-21

During the development of TEA-21, Congress recognized the unconscionable delays that occur in moving many transportation projects through the environmental review process. As co-chair of the Transportation Construction Coalition, ARTBA was pleased to have worked with this committee and others in Congress to develop the streamlining provision of TEA-21--section 1309. The ultimate goal of section 1309 was to move transportation projects through the various environmental review processes as quickly as possible, while complying with all federal environmental standards.

Mr. Chairman, as members of this committee know all too well, however, section 1309 failed to achieve its goal. TEA-21 was enacted June 9, 1998, and directed the federal agencies involved in the NEPA process for highway construction and mass transit to develop a memorandum of understanding among the agencies under which reviews, permits, etc. could be done concurrently under mutually agreed upon time tables. The Secretary of Transportation was designated as the lead official in the coordination of these efforts. Section 1309 required diverse federal agencies to put aside their claims of exclusive jurisdiction to create a coordinated process, just as was envisioned under NEPA.

This challenge, however, simply proved too great. For several months after TEA-21 was enacted, some of the natural resource agencies denied that section 1309 applied their role in the approval of transportation projects. This attitude not only slowed down the development of the streamlining regulations, but ultimately undermined the entire effort. It was not until May 25, 2000 that FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration published a proposed "streamlining" rule. However, the proposed rule fell far short of the mark. In a classic Washington, D.C., bureaucratic sleight of hand, the proposed rule actually would have made the environmental review process more burdensome than it had been prior to the enactment of section 1309. In comments to the agencies opposing final adoption of the proposed rule, ARTBA stated:

"The proposed regulations fail to comply with the statutory requirements to affect streamlining of the transportation project delivery process. To the contrary, the proposal adds many new requirements that will not only lengthen the project delivery process, but also increase project and transportation agency costs."

In December 2000, the agencies put the proposed rules on hold until the Bush Administration was well in place. On September 19, 2002, the agencies formally withdrew the 2000 proposed rule and closed the public docket.

Executive Order 13,274

Mr. Chairman, the withdrawal of the proposed streamlining rules coincided with the issuance of Executive Order 13,274 on September 18, 2002. This Order instructs federal departments and agencies to promote environmental stewardship and expedite environmental reviews of high-priority transportation infrastructure projects. It directs agencies to support the U.S. DOT to implement procedures to conduct environmental reviews in a timely and environmentally responsible manner. Finally, it establishes an interagency task force chaired by the Secretary of Transportation to monitor and assist agencies in their efforts to expedite reviews and to identify and promote policies that can streamline the review process. This task force must make yearly progress reports to the President.

ARTBA is fully supportive of President Bush's executive order. Consistent with section 1309 of TEA-21, it instructs the agencies to develop a streamlined review process and places the oversight of this process under the U.S. DOT. The order also demonstrates a buy in from the highest levels of the Executive Branch, which is essential to the success of any improvement in the environmental review process. We remain hopeful that the order will result in government resources being directed to expediting the review of high priority transportation improvement projects around the country.

ExPDITE Act

ARTBA appreciates and supports the President's executive order. We also endorse the ExPDITE Act. We are grateful to Chairman Young for making this legislation a priority for the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee and encourage each member of the committee to sign on as a co-sponsor of ExPDITE.

While the executive order was a very positive development, some of the reforms ARTBA supports will ultimately require a legislative solution. As already discussed, the ExPDITE Act includes all of the reforms that are central to ARTBA's streamlining policy: concurrent reviews, delegation of responsibilities to the states and U.S. DOT as the lead agency. In addition, the ExPDITE Act includes reforms that can only be achieved through legislation. Two of these items include: 4(f) / 106 reform and limitations on litigation.

Mr. Chairman, we simply must reform the process through which historic preservation statutes are administered. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 and section 106 of NHPA both provide protection for historic and cultural resources. However, the former is administered by the U.S. DOT and the latter by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation under different and sometimes conflicting processes. As I already mentioned, independent surveys by both NCHRP and ARTBA of state DOT officials have confirmed that 4(f) and 106 reviews are among the greatest source of delay in the environmental review process for transportation projects.

Under 106, the lead agency must identify historical properties, assess the impact of the proposed project on the property and then resolve any adverse effect by reaching agreement with the stakeholders or through advisor comments. The section 106 process is generally very conciliatory in nature, acting more like an arbitration where all of the stakeholders try to reach a common agreement. It is not intended to stop projects, but rather to ensure that federal agencies fully consider historic preservation issues and the views of the public.

Section 4(f) predates most other federal environmental laws and is much more rigid with no standard for analysis. The section prevents DOT from approving any transportation project or program that would "use" land from any park, historic site, recreational area or wildlife refuge, unless (1) there is "no prudent and feasible alternative" to harming the site and (2) the project includes "all possible planning to minimize harm" to the protected resource. Courts have given the statute very broad interpretation so that "use" can be almost anything that has a very small or indirect impact on a site. Since 4(f) only applies to transportation projects, it has the unintended consequence of preventing the DOT from being able to touch a site, even temporarily, while a private developer under 106 might be allowed to fully develop the same site. ExPDITE would reform this process so that 106 and 4(f) would be complimentary to each other, rather than at odds.

Second, we strongly support language in the ExPDITE Act that would put limitations on some of the obstructionist lawsuits brought by the environmental groups to delay badly-needed transportation improvement projects. I already referred to testimony Roy Kienitz, then executive director of the Surface Transportation Policy Project, gave before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on April 29, 1999. During that testimony, he also stated:

"In the struggle between proponents and opponents of a.. [highway] project, the best an opponent can hope for is to delay things until the proponents change their minds or tire of the fight. It is the only option they have, and so they use it."

Mr. Chairman, since 1999, ARTBA has spent several hundred thousand dollars in legal expenses trying to assist governmental entities in defending the transportation planning and delivery process. While many of the professional environmental groups talk a lot about wanting a more "inclusive" transportation planning process, the fact of the matter is really quite different. Since we have become active in litigation, most of our court time has been spent simply trying to get a seat at the table, not in arguing the merits of these cases. I could provide you a pile of court briefs where groups like the Sierra Club argue adamantly that the construction labor organizations and industry should not have a say in the final decision about transportation plans. The truth is the Sierra Club and many of their colleague organizations do not want an inclusive planning process. They want a process where they and they alone make the decisions. When the planning process is allowed to be hijacked by any one individual group, bad decisions are made.

Through ExPDITE's time limitation on the filing of lawsuits against individual highway improvement projects, we can resolve legal issues early on in the planning process. This early resolution could avoid last minute lawsuits that hold up a project after substantial resources have been expended on planning, design, right of way acquisition and other project delivery activities.

The truth is that America needs a dynamic transportation network to meet the needs of a growing population and economy. Such a network should include improving public transit, increased utilization of synchronized traffic signalization and other "smart road" technologies, improving local management of traffic incidents to clear roadways quickly and adding road capacity where appropriate and desired by a majority of local citizens. This is key to reducing traffic congestion and the unnecessary auto, truck and bus emissions it causes. It is also essential to maintaining time sensitive ambulance, police and fire emergency response service.

Mr. Chairman, ARTBA believes very strongly in the transportation planning process -- a process that involves public involvement by all stakeholders and final decisions that are made by public officials. That is why we urge Congress to pass the ExPDITE Act. The Act does nothing to change any federal environmental laws -- all it does is change the process. If we are going to be told by an agency that we can't build a project, we would rather know in two years instead of twenty years after valuable time and resources have been squandered away. A more efficient process is also good for our environment. Rather than wasting all of their time shuffling paper, the federal resource agencies will be able to focus their attention on issues of real environmental concern. Finally, the ExPDITE Act does nothing to stifle public participation. In fact, it would restore real public participation by returning the planning process to the citizens and our elected public officials, not a few special interest groups.

Transportation Construction Industry Ready to Build It

Mr. Chairman, if Congress can fix the environmental review process, I can assure you that the transportation construction industry will do its part to advance project delivery in a timely manner. The new catch phrase in highway construction is "Get In, Fix It, Get Out and Stay Out."

Last year, on May 24, ARTBA had the privilege of addressing the Aviation Subcommittee of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Robert McCord, vice president of operations for Ballenger Paving Division of APAC-Georgia, Inc., located in Taylors, South Carolina testified on ARTBA's behalf on challenges in airport runway construction. He said, in part:

"In 1999, I was fortunate enough to be project manager on the reconstruction of runway 9R-27L at Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport. From the first planning to the final clean- up, the team was on-site for only 4 months. Actual reconstruction of the runway only took 33 days.

In that time, we removed the equivalent of over 42 lane miles of concrete pavement and milled the equivalent of over 20 miles. In its place, we placed the equivalent of over 42 lane miles of concrete pavement and over 25 lane miles of asphalt pavement. We also trenched and concrete encased over seven miles of conduit, pulled over 36 miles of electrical wire and installed over 1,050 light fixtures. We delivered or removed over 22,000 truckloads of material, with 500-800 men and women working 24-hours a day, 7- days a week. We worked over half million man hours without a single lost time injury.

All of this in only 33 days -- which included 13 days of rain -- at the world's busiest commercial airport, without any flight delays attributable to construction activity.

I would submit that when you put your mind to doing something, have the right people involved, think innovatively, provide adequate funding, and put all your efforts toward advancing the team, anything can be done. It can be done quickly and it can be done right. While difficult to legislate or regulate, such an approach from federal, state and local agencies could represent the greatest single step forward to expedite the process for airport construction projects.

Mr. Chairman, if you can improve the planning and environmental review process, the transportation construction industry is ready, willing and able to complete projects on time and on budget.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, there's no doubt that the environmental review process for transportation projects is in need of improvement. Delays in the environmental review process are real and they are resulting in the withholding of the delivery of safety, productivity and quality of life enhancements to communities across the country. These delays cause scores of preventable deaths each year on our nation's highways and cost Americans time and money through increased congestion. Mr. Chairman, we have been discussing this subject of environmental streamlining now for at least a decade. Mr. Chairman, we have had enough discussion about this issue, we have had enough debate, and we have had enough foot dragging. The time to act is now! We strongly urge support for the ExPDITE Act.

LOAD-DATE: October 9, 2002